Reform and transparency for law school tuition: Guest commentary

The time has come to tell the truth about the cost of legal education.

Over the past 10 years, legal education costs have increased significantly, vastly exceeding the rate of inflation.

Legal education differs from a traditional undergraduate education in that tuition is paid for solely by loans and personal resources. As a result, student debt is the highest it’s ever been.

We are at a crossroads. If our goal is to produce top-quality lawyers from diverse backgrounds, then we must face the truth that under our current system, all students do not pay the same tuition and the differences are not based on ability. This disparity is problematic.

Most law schools have a tuition charge and then discount the tuition to many students through what is described as “merit scholarships,” offered to students based primarily, if not exclusively, on their performance on the Law School Admissions Test, the LSAT. The higher the LSAT score, the greater the merit scholarship awarded, resulting in a discount or reduction of the tuition.

In order to have some students pay little or no tuition, the school must charge other students the full or close-to-full tuition to have enough revenue to support the law school program. In other words, the students who perform below the median LSAT score (for a school) are the ones who pay for the scholarships received by the students who score higher.

There are many reasons students perform better on the LSAT that are unrelated to ability. The Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) that administers the LSAT recognizes there are disparities in performance linked to race, ethnicity and socio-economic factors. The advantages of attending certain caliber undergraduate schools, socioeconomic status and/or an individual’s ethnicity are all factors despite the best efforts of the LSAC to minimize these disadvantages.

Now, I am not naïve; the LSAT will continue to have an important role in the future. However, it should not be a gatekeeper for all things.

The result is the advantaged are in some measure being supported by the disadvantaged. And with the advantaged paying less for a legal education, the words of an old song ring true: “There’s nothing surer, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In the meantime, in between time, ain’t we got fun!”

The University of La Verne College of Law has refused to perpetuate this disparity that is promoted by a discount-scholarship model because it only further widens the wealth gap. We have adopted a True Tuition Model.

Advertisement

Beginning in fall 2014, all entering students will pay the same, flat, no-scholarship tuition, regardless of incoming credentials, and will have tuition locked for their years as a student.

Students who score higher on the LSAT will no longer be funded by the students who score lower.

Some may question whether this is a ploy to increase enrollment. We see it as a way to increase enrollment amongst students who embrace social justice and equal opportunity, to make law school more accessible, to make planning for the future available and to make legal education costs fair.

We recognize that this model may result in individuals with lower LSAT scores getting admitted.

However, we are confident that through our program, all students will have the opportunity to graduate and pass the bar exam on their first attempt.

This True Tuition Model at La Verne Law is grounded in the University of La Verne’s guiding principles — “Diversity and Inclusivity” and “Ethical Reasoning.”

The True Tuition Model places all students on the same economic playing field for funding their legal education. It is the way of the future.

Gilbert Holmes is the dean of the College of Law at the University of La Verne.